@Evolution
I'll address both of your posts in this reply.

Not necessarily. The Creative function isn't always "on", like the dominant function. Compare extroverted intuition as a creative function vs ignoring; not that different really.


Ne in different functional positions: (different ways to say the same thing?)


First post: there are a few problems I have with the idea that the creative function and the ignoring function are the same between quasi-identicals.

First, an LII values Ne whereas an ILI doesn't value it. This is an essential part of model A that would prevent the two types from using the function in "the same way" since, if they did, then it would imply that either both of them or neither of them valued the function. That's because one type actively tries to use the function as an extension of their base whereas the other actively tries to prevent using the function so as to not take away energy from their base. If they did use the function the same way, then which would it be? I guess the conclusion we can draw from this is that while the LII values Ne, the function is limited in scope when they use it i.e. they only use the function for particular purposes, which makes it seem as though it's ignored. The ILI, on the other hand, just doesn't want to use it. Likewise, the ILI only uses Te in a limited number of ways. For example, maximizing productivity for its own sake is never the goal for an ILI like it may be for an LxE (similar to how generating ideas for its own sake is never the goal of the LII); instead, the ILI uses empirical facts and productivity to solve problems directed by their Ni. The LII just doesn't want to use the function.

The second problem I have relates to this quote:

*This really isn't all that different than LII. These descriptions are to contrast LII and ILI with Ne dominants. The difference in emphasis though is to direct these types into different quadras, because that is the objective of socionics.


If we want a consistent system (as we should since socionics is not falsifiable), then we'd have to apply this same reasoning to other functions as well. For example, an ILI and LII would use Si in similar ways but model A distinguishes their relative value to be able to separate the two types into different quadras. I don't buy this idea since it would literally make ILI and LII the same type except for their base function, which simply doesn't hold in reality. Like, I know many individuals who are obvious Ti bases (and intuitives), and I can tell you for a fact that they value Si more than I do. Health, comfort, convenience, wellness, etc. are all things they make time for whereas it's almost a nonissue for me. When I do engage in those things, it's for ulterior (usually Se) reasons. For example, I may go to the gym to make myself look more attractive to a potential partner rather than for the purposes of health or wellness. I may only go to the gym for the purposes of developing physical strength, too.

Here's the thing: if the difference in emphasis is only to direct these two types into different quadras and this difference in emphasis keeps the functions values consistent with how model A predicts, then we'd have to concede that the functions aren't used in the same way. If we want to have the idea that the functions are used in the same way, then we'd have to abandon model A's ideas of function value. We can't have both. I think that keeping model A's idea of function value makes more sense and is more consistent with reality (even if we can't test it scientifically), which makes it a more useful system to employ.

Second post:

Gulenko is building a new system that combines MBT and Socionics in an attempt to unify the two. He is under the assumption, as many here are, that MBTI INTP= Socionics LII. This only works when you ignore information that contradicts this assumption. For example, INTP in MBTI has a functional stack TiNeSiFe. This is much closer to Jung's idea of infantile Fe, a point of weakness within the individual. However, Socionics goes a step further and assumes that the inferier Fe needs to paired with an Fe dominant to find balance. This is something MBTI INTPs generally reject. Isn't strange that the ILI's polr is so similar to the MBTI's INTPs inferior Fe? The same with MBTI's INTJ's inferior Se. It is very similar to the LII's Se polr. This is relatively important information to ignore. So which is it? I don't think this has been worked out very well. Perhaps some MBTI INTPs would be receptive to being tamed with Fe, but I think with their inferior Fe behavior, they would repel Fe users in a manner similar to ILIs. There are little twists on information that make compatibility and direct correlations very troublesome.

I also don't think quadras are a good way to identify individual types. Since they are largely theoretical, they are essentially "predictions" of what you would expect if the cognitive stack, its interfunctional dynamics, and the effects they are supposed to have, are true. I don't think LII, necessarily fit into an alpha, especially if their weak Fe and strong Ti puts them at odds with the group.
I have noticed that Gulenko's work is much closer to ideas presented in MBTI, but there are many notable differences. For example, I don't think he ever made the claim that ILIs plan as much as MBTI says INTJs do. He claims they think further ahead than LIIs, which is consistent with the INTJ/INTP distinction, but he doesn't extend it to the illogical conclusion that Ni bases would be "set in stone" like MBTI does. Maybe this is his part of his attempt at unification.

I don't buy the 1-1 formula that LII = INTP, ILI = INTJ, etc. for the same reason you suggest and others. First, you say that there is inconsistency with how MBTI describes the inferior function. Let me add to this for Fe in INTP. Part of what MBTI says is that an INTP wants to be emotionally expressive and welcoming to others but they comes across as awkward when they try to do so. This is more reminiscent of Fi role and Fe DS. An INTJ just doesn't care since they value Fi rather than Fe, which means that they value genuine emotional connection rather than "putting on an act" to welcome somebody else. This is rather consistent with Fe PoLR for ILI and gamma values. However, MBTI also describes INTPs as recluses and loners that dislike emotional contact with others, which is like PoLR Fe. It's inconsistent and therefore problematic.

I don't think we can do the same analysis with INTJ and Se inferior and LII and Se PoLR since the fixations of Se vary so drastically in between the two systems to where they aren't even comparable. In a lot of ways, Se inferior sounds like Si PoLR in MBTI and Se PoLR sounds like a mix of Te and Se inferior in MBTI. To compare Se inferior to Se PoLR would therefore be a pretty useless comparison.

Here are my thoughts as to why there isn't a 1-1 connection.
I think that it really depends on how you type yourself in either system. For example, if you type yourself INTJ via descriptions in MBTI, then you're probably a rational type in socionics since socionics is more consistent with the idea that a rational leading function leads to a rational temperament than MBTI is. MBTI places more emphasis on the dominant extroverted function (but is also inconsistent with this). However, if you type yourself INTJ by thoroughly analyzing the functions, you're much more likely to type yourself ILI in socionics since you'll notice the similarities in their function stacks when you don't get caught up in the "mastermind" stereotype.


I find that quadras are only useful for seeing general trends among types. For example, I've noticed that people I type LII often care about finance/business a lot less than people I type ILI or LIE. And I'm not being confirmationally biased here (well, as much as that's possible for an unscientific study) since I'm typing these people on a standard that's independent of financial competence and understanding. It just seems to be the case that alphas don't care about this stuff and gammas do, despite the ideas of "quadras" being abstracted to all the way to hell. Similarly, gammas just don't seem to care about health or fun (in the abstract) nearly as much as alphas do. This is part of the reason I like the subtype system. It makes certain aspects of the type stronger than others. For example, an LII-Ne is much more alpha-like than an LII-Ti, though the latter still has many traits that are stereotypically considered alpha.

Overall, I think that it's a crapshoot as to whether an INTJ or INTP would be LII or ILI in socionics. It isn't so black and white either way you spin it.


Also, out of curiousity, what do you type as in MBTI and socionics?